Ohio
Summary of Green Recount Team reports of county recount efforts- only about half of
counties have completed reports-
few of the counties allowed full complete audits
Only 4 relatively small counties were noted
in the recount summaries to have done full random samples as required by
4
other counties were noted as having either done a random sample with
demographic limits on the counties that could be chosen or
to say they did previous random sample without recount team
participation.
In the recount/audit process, there was
evidence of fraud or manipulation of vote totals that were likely to have
produced significant deviations
in the official vote totals compared to the voter
intent. This is in addition to failure
to count or take into account undervotes due to
hanging chad
as can be done according to
The following counties were identified as
having evidence of fraud or manipulation that could have produced significant
differences between official counts and voter intent
(or significant
efforts to prevent recount team from assessing the validity of vote totals)
Auglaize,
Some of these counties have had followup analysis by independent analysts that provide
further documentation on these counties issues, as well as large numbers of
irregularity incident reports to the EIRS hotline on election
day. Some of this
documentation can be found at the following 5 sites:
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm Mahoning and
http://www.freepress.org Departments articles
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html
http://www.voteprotect.org maps
http://www.votersunite.org
The Green recount teams in several counties also
documented that the
The Green recount teams in several counties also documented that the Triad Manufacturer representatives have a remote patch to the Triad compilers and can make changes to the compilers remotely. They maintain and test them remotely, and on election day had a running tally of votes on their company website as the votes came in.
Touchscreen Counties (Auglaise,
Knox,
Optical Scan Counties(Allen,
Punch Card Counties(
http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/allen.php
3% sample not random(chosen by county)
hand count and machine count differed by one vote(marked in ink so machine would not count)
No hand count done for rest of county
No access to voter logs, provisionals, absentees until after Jan 10.
********************************************************************
Ashland County Optical Scan *** (butterfly overvote problem) http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/ashland.php
3% sample not random(chosen by county)(no one seemed to know how to do random sample)
Ballots stored in open containers in staff snack room accessible to staff
{Significantly, missing from the ballot instructions is anything referring to erasures. This is important because erasures are counted as over-votes and not counted as a valid vote. There was no clarity about this on the ballot. [In other words, if you erase a mark on the ballot, the ballot automatically becomes invalid, but the instructions on the ballot make no mention of this fact.]
This year's was so confusing that there were 530 over-votes, as compared to 2000 when there were only 166 (a difference of 364 votes). This may sound confusing but bear with me, and look at both samples first. It was determined (by some estimating among the 4 witnesses present) that about 80% of the over-votes were indeed clear about the intent of the voter.}
{Confusing ballot design caused rejection of lots of votes with clear voter intent:
However, due to the odd way that the bottom group of candidates (president and vice-president) was placed on top of the write-in space, many, many people filled in both the president and the write-in while leaving the space blank [thereby invalidating their ballots].}
{Ballots filled in ink had been rejected by machine, but
{Absentee ballot design extremely confusing- unlikely most voters would know how to fill them out- errors likely- placement of circles by vice pres. candidate likely to produce misvotes}
{Provisional Ballots 631 total 554 counted 77 not counted
(no access to records to confirm why votes not counted- most appear due to inability to confirm registration)}
{Poll books- looked at briefly- just noted number of voters penciled in by staff on election day-
I can find no explanation for why there were none offered to us from Greene
Some Precinct totals in the log books were strange:
PRECINCT REC'D CAST SPOIL
002 1-B 600-R 354-C 3-S 6-P ? left blank by poll worker
003 1-C 520-R 291 3-S 5-P =282 possible ballot stuffing (+61)
009 2-C 369-R 450-C 3-S 6-P =360 R& C reversed?, sloppyiness? (+450)
033 GREENE
034
035
|
036 |
550-R |
461-C |
3-S |
5-P |
=80 |
|
040 |
DID NOT |
||||
|
041 MIFFLIN 1 (+100) stuffing or err |
225+50+50-R |
298-C |
0-S |
4-P |
=76+17+30 |
|
042 MIFFLIN 2 |
325+30+50-R |
282-C |
2-S |
4-P |
=82+11+22 |
|
043 |
400-R |
319-C |
8-S |
3-P |
=69 |
|
046 JEROMESVILLE VILLAGE |
325-R |
222-C |
2-S |
2-P |
=79 (-20) |
|
052 |
475-R |
357-C |
2-S |
3-P |
=111 |
|
053 |
435+15-R |
354-C |
2-S |
6-P |
=82+6 |
|
055 |
450+10+40-R |
384-C |
1-S |
|
=88+5+15 |
|
059 SULLIVAN |
620-R |
513-C |
4-S |
7-P |
=92 |
|
060 SULLIVAN |
500-R |
375-C |
1-S |
3-P |
=120 |
|
062 HAYESVILLE |
300-R |
219-C |
0-S |
1-P |
=79 |
|
063 VERMILLION |
440-R |
351-C |
3-S |
6-P |
=79? |
|
064 VERMILLION |
400-R |
329-C |
3-S |
4-P |
=61? |
|
65 VERMILLION |
440-R |
359-C |
3-S |
4-P |
=79 |
Respectfully submitted by Witness J.
***********************************************************************
Auglaize County
http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/auglaize.php
Absentees 2262 (counted by Optical Scan Tabulator) (no random sample of election day votes allowed by order of S.O.S.)
( Often the counter and the observer would come up with different totals. If it was greater than seven they would recount. Less than seven they would call in the leader and it would be adjudicated.?)
( my judgment is that the
The actual cartridges from election day were then
read into the tabulating PC. One cartridge was inserted twice, the tabulating
software identified the error, and the Technician confirmed that the data was
only transferred to the PC once. A previously known error caused the votes from
one precinct to be read from the FLASH memory of the
Grand totals for the presidential candidates were totaled and the results were printed. The results of the count varied from the original voting reports as follows.
· The absentee ballot count was four ballots higher than the original count.
· George W. Bush gained four votes over the original count.
· John Kerry lost one vote from the original count (an additional over-vote was counted, canceling one Kerry vote.
· All other Presidential vote counts remained as originally counted.
A witness inquired as to the capability of the
Employee alleges voting machine errors. A former employee of ES&S, ""the company that provides the voting systems in Auglaize County, had access to and used the main computer that is used to create the ballot and compile election results……a violation of county board of election protocol……Mr. Nuss was suspended and then resigned.""
********************************************************************
Brown County
random sample from hat but only used precincts with totals less than the 3% ?
3% sample matched
Poll book totals were checked against precinct totals & matched
(recounters didn't seem to understand much about vote and recount process, apparently no check of absentees, provisionals, misvotes)
*********************************************************************
Butler County (Recounters don't seem very serious- didn't give info on how sample done or details about the recount- just said it ran "smoothly".
***********************************************************************
Champaign County Wayne Rapp, V.P. of Triad Systems present Punch cards *** (no serious recount carried out)
(He took the lead on how to do the recount and directed the recount)
Affidavit
I, Witness P., want to state for the record that there were several serious problems with this
recount in
First, I want to state that all the personnel were courteous and pleasant at all times. Further, I felt they were reasonably well informed and were doing things as their board and the Secretary of State wanted them.
There was no random selection of three percent of precincts. The precinct was chosen well before we arrived, probably days earlier because they were using printed tally sheets with the precinct Salem North printed at the top. I pointed out the importance of a random selection and explained how to do that by writing names of precincts on paper and putting them into a hat or bowl for the selection. They commented that making the selection that way they could wind up with a precinct that was too small and have to choose a second. I reiterated that I understood that could happen but random selection was important and that if they proceeded without making a random selection of precincts I would highlight that in my report. Without a truly random selection of precincts, the precincts that would be subject to a recount are easily predictable and the value of using a recount of a small portion to ensure accuracy throughout is useless. I think this is an easy concept for people to appreciate and that just about everyone connected with the BOE understands it intuitively.
The ballots were not stored in sealed containers. They were stored in latched tin containers in the same room where the counting machine is kept. The room may have been locked at night.
The signature book was not made available even though I
requested it several times. Director Burden called the
I was not allowed to see the absentee ballot envelopes that may have arrived late or had some other problem with them. I was given only a verbal count of how many absentee ballots were sent out and how many were returned.
I was not allowed to see any provisional ballot that was rejected. I was not allowed to see a summary of rejected provisional ballots.
In every case that I could not see documents that were necessary, I was told
that I could see them after
Witness M. is also willing to sign an identical affidavit.
******************************************************************************
http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/clermont.php
3% random sample was not random; only small precincts
included; hand count didn't match machine but didn't follow Ohio rule to count
all by hand There was indication of inconsistent policies in counting favoring
Bush and evidence of tampering according to witness. County officials
uncooperative; would not let observers see info needed to confirm results, such
as overvotes.
Kerry votes on some cards had
stickers over them so could not be counted by compiler. No explanation given. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=7
***********************************
Clinton County
only one observer allowed other than Repub observer. Recount was very cursory and quick.
witness overwhelmed and intimidated by process and didn't do much checking. Didn't notice any glaring problems. No discussion of whether 3% sample was random. Didn't check absentees; told provisionals mixed into regular ballots.
*************************************************************************
Columbiana County
No discussion of whether 3 precincts handcounted were randomly chosen;
056 Knox Twp NE 46 undervotes or overvotes out of 599
029 Salem 4-C 33 undervotes or overvotes out of 422
015 E. Palestine 3-A 63 undervotes or overvotes out of 612
143 provisional ballots rejected
only the 3 sample precincts were looked into by witnesses.
************************************************************************
Coshocton County Optical Scan *** http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/coshocton.php
The county voluntarily opted for a full hand recount, likely for reasons
related to the large discrepiency found between the
official certified numbers and the results of the recount, with it being clear
that there had been ballot counting for unofficial reasons between the
certification and recount time.
Once again, ballot security is an issue. Boxes were open prior to our
arrival. They are kept unsealed in a locked room at the Board of Elections.
Vote totals were distributed to witnesses with the apparent intention of misleading them. The hand count totals were
compared to totals furnished by the BOE dated/generated(?)
Some issues were raised during the hand count that warrant
mention. The failure of the board to allow witness presence
prior to the handling of the ballots. BOE personnel (employee/member)
alluded to the counting of some
precincts prior to the start of the recount. Witness, Patricia Stout,
stated that "one of the precincts I observed was already separated into
Republicans, Democrats and Other. It was clear that this pile had been
counted." The count was completed and totals reflected a net loss of 13 votes
for George W. Bush, and a net gain of 34 votes for John Kerry. The hand count
totals were compared to totals furnished by the BOE dated/generated
Signature book examination conducted by the witnesses for the Democratic candidate looked at two different precincts, with BOE personnel recounting Jefferson Twp. Precinct. Discrepancy appeared to indicate a pattern of a 7-8% loss of votes for the Democratic candidate.
*********************************************************
The 3% sample was not done in a random manner. Precinct selection was done on the basis of only choosing precincts with 550 or more votes, and a cross-section of areas ---- one East side, one West side, one affluent, one non-affluent.
Only ballots with holes punched through, with 2 or less chads remaining would be counted. Dimpled chads would not be counted, even if the entire ballot was dimpled chads.
there will be no visual inspection of the remaining 600,000-some ballots in the county.
They are not counting the rejected provisional ballots and uncounted absentee ballots even if upon inspection by the witnesses errors are found and can be demonstrated. Vu says the City Prosecutor says the approach of not adding these votes into the recount totals is fine.
Witnesses were then able to look at the signature books of 60 different
precincts, including those of the 3% selected and 26 other precincts of
concern. They were looking to make sure that the number of signatures in a
precinct matched the number of ballots cast in that precinct. In many cases
they did not. From what they were able to get through, witnesses found that signature counts were very much different from the
official recorded number of ballots.
Anomalies were found. Almost all of the witnesses that I spoke with felt that the ballots were not in random order, that they had been previously sorted. There would be long runs of votes for only one candidate and then long runs for another, which seemed statistically improbable to most.
the alphabetical log books were taken away from witnesses, and replaced with only the log books of the 3% hand-recounted precincts, in addition to about 30 of the specifically-requested precincts. The volunteers began examining these log books.
In at least one instance, the rotation (meaning the order the candidates are listed) in the booklet did not match that of the actual ballot. In another instance, the page listing the Presidential candidates was missing completely from the booklet. An examination of both the transfer case and the black grip did not turn up the missing page.
Attachment: Legal Authorities
(We have full copies of all references and can fax them as needed).
Full visual inspection
a) Secretary of State (
b)
c)
Precinct Requests: Concerns whether parties to the recount have a right to request hand count of specific precincts within the 3% hand out.
a) Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (CCBOE): Recount: Standard Operating Procedures Guide: F4: "Any requests for specific precincts must be made, in writing, 24 hours before the recount procedures begin."
b) Guide clearly contemplates submission by parties of specific precinct requests (thought BOE is not required to accept them all).
c) Greens, Dems and Libertarians all submitted specific precinct requests yesterday, well before 24[-hour] period.
Rejected provisionals and uncounted absentees: recount includes not just observation but correction of rejections as warranted:
a) Ohio Statute: R.C. [Revised Code] 3505.27: Counting of Votes: "Unless otherwise ordered by the secretary of state or the board of elections, the counting and tallying of ballots shall be conducted according to procedures prescribed by the board of elections that assure an accurate count of all votes cast . . . . The board shall prescribe additional procedures as necessary to assure an accurate count of all votes cast."
b) Section should apply to counting of votes at any point during election process, initial tallies or recounts.
c) Vote count will not be accurate if recount does not include revision of inaccurate rejected provisionals and uncounted absentees. Many challenges of inaccuracies here will come from witnesses.
Precincts for hand count:
a)
b) See also Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (CCBOE): Recount: Standard Operating Procedures Guide F3 (3% recount must be "randomly selected").
c) This entails a scientifically random sample, including precincts of varying sizes.
d) Statement on selecting a "random" sample by Professor Cyrus Taylor, Case Western Reserve University (CWRU): There are at least three problems with the rule that precincts will be chosen for a hand count from those in which at least 550 ballots were cast:
(1) The small fraction of precincts (only 8% of all precincts qualify for their ballots being closely examined in the hand recount) are not reflective of the county as a whole. Overall, the qualifying precincts have significantly higher proportion of votes for Bush than for Kerry, yet the county voted for Kerry by a 2:1 margin.
(2) Precincts that have significant problems on Election Day are that much less likely to reach the 550 minimum, and will thus not be rechecked in the recount.
(3) The vast majority of precincts have less than 550 ballots cast. It is thus possible in principle to fiddle with the returns from most of the county without fear that they would be checked in the hand recount of 3% of the returns.
additional independent notes:
CUYAHOGA COUNTY - (1) ""more than 10,000 voters"" were kept from voting; (2) in a mostly black precinct, confused results for Kerry and third party candidates indicated ""fraud, error, or mistake""; (3)""there was an effective denial of the right to cast a provisional ballot and have that provisional ballot counted. 8,099 were ""ruled invalid,"" about 1/3 of those cast; (4) ""voters were misled when they received phone calls incorrectly informing them that their polling place had been changed""; and (5) in some cases, ""arrows on the absentee ballots did not align with the correct punch hole"" which ""led to voters casting a vote for a candidate other than the candidate they intended to support.""
*********************************************************
Defiance County
Coordinator did not indicate whether 3% sample was random. Apparently asked no questions and did not look at records. Simply stated that the hand count matched the machine count, so rest were counted by machine uneventfully.
*****************************************************
Delaware County punch cards
No indication as to whether 3% sample was random. Hand counted 4 precincts.
ES&S contractor participated in the machine counts, kept machine running, reset when needed, etc. The hand counts matched the machine counts, and the rest were run through the machine.
*************************************************
Fairfield County Punch cards ***
The 3% sample was not random. the Democratic and
Republican board member each selected a precinct to recount. They were
Recounted and again didn't match. After agreeing that the entire county
would be hand counted, they called the
The BOE was informed by the Greens that this was a violation of the recount law.
*********************************************************
The 3% sample was not randomly selected. 2 out of the 38 precincts had been chosen: one urban (Washington 2A) and one rural (Wayne East). They totaled just over 3% of votes cast.
The undervotes (no presidential candidate chosen) were almost all punched in an odd-numbered punch hole. The overvotes punched more than one even-numbered punch hole.
The recount for Washington 2A matched exactly, including 3 undervotes, and 1 overvote.
The recount included 15 absentee ballots, 7 provisional ballots. All had been put into the metal box for the precinct. The recount for Wayne East matched exactly, including 2 undervotes and 4 overvotes. It included 9 absentee ballots and 3 provisionals.
The Democratic volunteer and I looked at the rejected provisional ballots. They were bound by rubber band and each was in an envelope with a reason for rejection handwritten on it. We were given a typed list (attached), alphabetized by last name, of rejected provisional ballots. There were 46 names on the list. 38 voted in the wrong precinct (WP) 8 were not registered (NR) (83% of rejected provisionals were for voting in wrong precinct)
(undervotes and overvotes appear to be due to unreliablility of the voting system)
- (1) In some absentee ballots, there was lack of alignment in the punch card hole, such as occurred in Cuyahoga County; (2) Widespread dirty tricks in minority precincts supplying incorrect poll location by fliers and calls by someone ""claiming to be from the County Board of Elections..""; (3) ""there was a discriminatory assignment of more voting machines per registered voter to precincts with more white voters than African-American voters.."" with resulting very long lines. ; and (4) there were ""numerous reported instances of vote hopping (in which a voter selecting Kerry for President saw the choice displayed on the machine ''hop'' to Bush for President or was unable to vote for Kerry).""
No discussion of whether 3% sample was random. The Director for Fulton told me that Triad is able to reprogram the computer to count only the Presidential ballots by remote dial-up. I do not know when after the election that occurred.
The hand count matched the machine count and the rest were run by machine.
**********************************************************************
3% sample was random sample. Hand count did not match machine count(differed by 1)
Quit to decide whether to hand count whole county
as per
*****************************************************************
3% sample not random. 3 precincts chosen. Witnesses not allowed to closely witness or monitor counting, only from across the room. Witnesses were unable to look for hanging chad.
Only one of the 3 precincts had the hand count match the machine count. The hand count was repeated until it matched the machine count. Took one more time for one precinct and 3 more counts to match for the other.
We were not allowed to see the poll books or signatures, but were told we could return the next day to view the poll books of the 3 precincts chosen for hand count.
Information for four rejected provisional ballots was provided for precincts in recount only for Precinct 442. There were 3 absentee ballots rejected for being received after November 2 in Prec. 442.
The precinct won by Bush(31) had no undervotes or overvotes. The 2 precincts won by Kerry had large numbers of misvotes. Precinct 224 had 15 undervotes and 1 overvote. Precinct 442 had 10 undervotes and 1 overvote. Overall the County had 992 undervotes and 332 overvotes.
Overall Bush gained a net vote of 10 votes in the recount.
*************************************************************************
Guernsey County Punch cards (Triad tabulator) (Triad rep present) ***
3% sample was not random. 1 precinct was hand counted and matched machine
count. The Triad rep had tested and
prepared the machines prior to our arrival.
Ballot storage appeared to be secure.
The log book signature numbers also matched the total number voting for this precinct, but only looked at one precinct.
Hamilton County Punch cards *** voter logs not compared to official votes;
Sample: it was explained to us by
John Williams (Director of the Hamilton County BOE) that 3% of the
3400
provisional ballots were rejected, the reasons were not fully
determined. But "Approximately 400 of those [
No indication of whether 3% sample was random, witness did not appear to be knowledgable about voting systems, no discrepiencies noted,
No indication that vote logs or absentees or provisionals were checked.
The sample precinct was not chosen at random, but was was pre-selected."
"A total of seven Diebold tabulators were used and a test run was done on three of them. We requested that the other four machines have a test run done and this was denied."
"In the morning, Brandon [the Diebold technician] informed K that he could not stand behind the tables holding the tabulators while the recount was being conducted because this was a "security issue" as the discs with the election results were behind the tables."
"Another obsever, Cathy from the Democrats, reported she had seen
"We found seven ballots that were cast in the correct polling station, but incorrect precinct and were disqualified." (Poll worker error)
— Green Party Observer Hardin
No indication of whether sample was random. Hand count did not appear to match machine count(difference of 4 votes) but may have been due to different treatment of overvotes by the 2 methods so rest of county was machine counted as if there was a match.
Hocking County (Punch Cards, Triad tabulator) ***
Sample was not random, observers objected. BOE was not cooperative regarding doing a serious recount. Manufacturer rep was told the number Counted by hand count prior to doing the machine count.
David Cobb Reveals Reports of Tampering with Voting
Machines
David Cobb: "Representative Conyers, I have the most recent breaking information. It will be very brief, but this is, I think, very important. It's probably the most troubling incident that has been related to my campaign. It was related only on Sunday December 12th, regarding the very shocking event that occurred last Friday, December 10th."
"The representative from Triad Systems came into this county's board of elections office un-announced (that is, on this Friday). He said he was just stopping by to see if they had any questions about the up-coming recount. He then headed into the back room where the Triad-supplied Tabulator (that is, the machine that COUNTS the ballots) is kept."
"This Triad representative told them there was a problem with the system, that the system had a bad battery and had — quote — 'lost all its data' — end quote."
"He then took the computer apart and started swapping parts in and out of it and another 'spare' tower PC also in the room. [He may have had spare parts in his coat as one of the BOE people moved it and remarked as to how very heavy it was. He finally re-assembled everything and said it was working but to not turn it off.]"
"He then asked which precinct would be counted for the 3% recount test, and the one which had been selected as it had the right number of votes, was relayed to him. He then went back and did something else to the Tabulator."
"The Triad Systems representative suggested that since the hand count had to match the machine count exactly, and since it would be hard to memorize the several numbers which would be needed to get the count to come out exactly right, that they should post this series of numbers on the wall where they would not be noticed by observers. He suggested making them look like employee information or something similar."
"The people doing the hand count could then, he said, just report those numbers no matter what they actually counted in the ballots. This would then — quote — 'match' — the Tabulator report for this precinct exactly. [The numbers were apparently the final certified counts for the selected precinct.]"
Precinct ballots were not sealed after the election. Recount observers were not allowed to look at “spoiled ballots” that were rejected. No count or breakout of rejected votes or misvotes given.
No definitive statement of whether the sample was random, but appears sample was not random.
Sample(3 precincts) was not randomly chosen. The tabulator was tested by the manufacturer the previous day without a Recount Witness present.
The first precinct was counted and all election workers came up with
different totals. A representative of
the
Time was short so a copy of voter logs for 2 precincts was made with SS#s blacked out, to be looked at later. No analysis of absentees or rejected provsionals was made.
Appears they may have done a random sample of
precincts that were approx. 3 percent of total votes. But the precincts were preselected
without recount observer participation.
Hand count differed from machine count by 1 vote. Poll workers separated by undervotes,
overvotes, and o.k. votes on the presidential column.
On several occasions, hanging chads were knocked
clear by poll workers or their supervisors. The actual undervotes for the county decreased by 5 ballots, based on
the recount computer tabulation.
It is not stated whether a decision was made to do manual recount of all
precincts, but apparently not.
The Microvote
·
Full machine count of all absentee and provisional ballots
(4309) then performed, with ballots cast tabulated at 4281. Board of Elections
employee stated that the discrepancy was within the margin of error. There apparently were undervotes.
·
Tabulation of cartridges experienced computer malfunction during
data reading optical scan ballots. Computer would freeze, necessitating
rebooting and rechecking ballot count.
·
Cartridges were then read and all optical scan and cartridge
data combined for a summary report.
·
Permanent paper audit trails inside machine not available to
witnesses, available audit trails matched within margin of error.
Poll and signature analysis for some precincts
was to be carried out.
The DREs have voter choices in memory and a sample of machines
was chosen and a handcount of the memory printout
carried out for the chosen machines.
The handcounts and machine counts
matched.
There were many
write-ins for both Bush and Kerry which could not be counted because they were
not write-in candidates.
The wording on the law
must be changed to allow write in votes for any qualified candidate, not just
those who are qualified write-in candidates. Clear voter intention is being
disregarded over a technicality. ?
No indication
that absentee votes or provisional votes were looked at, or voter logs.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Our team, to be frank,
was greeted on opening day, Wednesday, by a rude and arrogant election board
and senior staff which refused to discuss its recount
procedures or respond to questions, let alone challenges.
As you may have read in the Advocate, one of our group was even threatened with arrest for challenging board dictates which she found contrary to law."
"The board, seemingly informally without a recorded vote, decided we will not be able to inspect the voting machines and their ballot assemblies to insure correct rotation of candidate names."
"Neither will we be able to check rejected provisional ballots to determine if denials were justified."
"Nor will we have any say as to which precincts will be used in the initial three percent sample count, precincts supposed to be selected 'at random.'"
"At one point, the elections director even told us not to slow the ballot inspection by pausing to look at "overvote" or "undervote" ballots, a ruling thereafter reversed by the elections board chairman."
We were told, for
example, that it is not board policy to attempt to determine voter intent on
ballots "dimpled" by a weak punch which leaves only a mark or
indention. The vote will only count if the stylus cleanly separates the chad from the ballot.
"[regarding the undervotes] ... witnesses were surprised to see how many Licking County voters seemingly braved storms and crowds to go to the polls, stand in long lines and then NOT vote for president ..."
"During two days of observing ballots from 26 precincts, I found nearly 200 such cases of undervotes or overvotes, many of them involving absentee ballots."
"Something strange is going on here, and we're getting similar reports from other counties."
— Green Party Observer
No report on the outcome of the sample recounts.
Our requests for guidelines for the recount were not accepted by the BOE. It was made very clear that it was their recount, with their rules, and we could only observe. The list from McTigue was filed by the board but not used. Bad beginning feelings.
"The three percent was chosen by random by the BOE but not witnessed by us. This made us feel that the BOE had something to hide."
"Ballot counting BOE personnel went very fast with the recount. It was difficult to observe everything. BOE personnel were instructed not to speak with witnesses."
"We did get to see rotation pages and found no problems. Should be noted that employees of BOE had access to these before and after election. Not locked."
"We did get to see precinct boxes ... Should be noted that employees of BOE had access to these before and after election. Not locked."
"Blackwell's
'correct precinct' ruling really affected this election. Provisional ballots
are rejected with a limited amount of knowledge, without using inferences
favorable to the voter, and a fair appeal procedure is not in place. WE NEED TO
We
saw the overvotes and undervotes
of the three percent. We asked to see the remaining 97 percent of overvotes and undervotes, but
were not allowed. As a result, we were unable to figure out whether there were
any patterns to these uncounted ballots.
No absentee ballots were seen.
Green Party Observer
The ballots for the preselected precincts were first counted by hand and then counted by the optical scanners" "The problem: I witnessed 3 ballots physically altered."
"The apparent reason for this was to ensure that the vote count produced by the optical scan machine matched the hand count, and thus avoid hand-counting all of the ballots in the county."
"These two ballots were physically changed by the election officials... This was done before the ballots were fed into the optical scanner. I asked one of the election officials if the ballot in case 2 would have been recorded as an under-vote on election day. She first said yes, then she said she did not know..."
— Green Party Observer
"It has also been reported that the observers were not allowed close enough to be able to see the numbers used for the test run or the results from the counting machine of that test run."
"They were able to see the test being run but not close enough to see the numbers on the sheet that provided the preliminary test numbers, and then the board of elections officials actually left the room with the results from the machine count, which again the observers couldn't see, and the preliminary numbers then returned and reported that it had come out OK."
"The group then was given a break for lunch and upon their return were kept waiting for a while. It was explained to them that they were waiting for the technician from Diebold to reprogram the machine."
—
"Gloriane Leek, witness for the Democrats,
... specifically asked to see provisional ballots that were not counted
because the person was in the wrong precinct but at the right poll." "They let her look at the ballots
and she estimates that 50 percent of the provisionals
filled out for
Gloriane Leek also brought up the issue of absentee ballots that were rejected. However, those ballots were not brought out and were not counted in this recount.
Gloriane Leek also raised the issue of distribution of voting machines to precincts. She said precincts in lower income neighborhoods had less machines and not enough machines and therefore longer lines and more voter disenfranchisement. She said the Democrats might file suit under the 14th amendment to deal with this issue.
As a sample test for the recount, 600 absentee ballots were selected at random to make up 3 percent. Those 600 were counted by hand and then put through the optical scanner to see if it matched up. For Kerry, there were 7 more votes during the hand count than during the machine count.
At the end of the
optical scan machine count, the over/under votes were discarded and the ones in
the hand count pile were taken and counted by a woman named Joyce. We all
watched. For some of the votes, she could not decide because of stray marks or
lightly colored in circles so she made a new pile specifically for the board to
look at. She put these votes in an open basket. It was decided that the board
would have to look at these votes and determine how they should be counted if
at all.
At the end of the optical scan machine count, the over/under votes were discarded and the ones in the hand count pile were taken and counted by a woman named Joyce. We all watched. For some of the votes, she could not decide because of stray marks or lightly colored in circles so she made a new pile specifically for the board to look at. She put these votes in an open basket. It was decided that the board would have to look at these votes and determine how they should be counted if at all. When the board reconvened, they handed us spread sheets with the recount numbers on it. Kerry had 109 more votes and Bush had 47. These are vote increases. The board then certified the results and the observers left.
I, along with M.,
stayed behind and asked what about the votes in the basket marked "must be
looked at by the board." They were never looked at. Mike Sciortino the director and one other board member took M.
and myself to the room that holds the votes and together we looked at the
basket with the ballots that was marked to be looked at by the board. Neither
M. nor myself ever touched the ballots.
I asked what
their plan was to deal with these ballots that were not counted even though the
recount was certified. They said tomorrow the board would reconvene and look at
the 23 ballots and redo the results of the recount and re-give us all
spreadsheets.
My concern is that for
about 2 hours this box was out of the observers site
and I do not know for sure that 23 was the number of ballots originally in
the box. My concern also is that I was not given a time that the board
would look at these ballots and these are highly contested ballots and
I think the board might look at them without observers there. Also it is
of great concern that if I had not said something these ballots would have
been lost.
"...It should be noted that during the recount and the board meeting one board member was missing the whole time. His name is Robert J. Wasko, a Democrat, who was away on a trip and therefore the board was uneven with 2 Republicans and only one Democrat for the whole of the recount."
— Green Party Observer Mahoning
They created a 'zero count deck' (test deck) and ran it before we arrived."
"They also had four precincts already 'chosen at random'"
"... Although this was not ideal, after spending the day with the people in this office, I have no reason to suspect that there was a 'hidden agenda'..."
"All poll books and logs were laid out for [us] to look at and additionally there was a person who was willing to answer all questions regarding the poll books."
"If I were grading the Board of Elections of Marion County I would give them an A+."
— Green Party Observer
The precincts
to recount were not chosen randomly. According to Mr. Thomas E. Wolfe, Chairman
of the Medina County Board of Elections, 'I took two
"...Witnesses were not allowed to review the selection and preparation of the ballots to test the voting machines, nor did we have an opportunity to examine them, either before or after they were used to test the machines. We did not see the testing of the machines..."
"Two
ballots in
According to Mr.
Wolfe, in
BOE Director Susan Strasser, BOE Chair
Thomas E. Wolfe, and NE Ohio Field Representative for the Secretary of State, Madhu Singh all refused to allow further inspection of the
ballots from
"Tom Wolfe, Democratic Board Member, directed the recount. It was apparent to everyone in the room that Tom Wolfe and the other board members were more concerned about getting the 3% hand recount done without any change in the tally [any change would allow for 100% hand recount of the County] than in having a fair investigation of the vote in Medina County."
"We are
disappointed in how Tom Wolfe selected the precincts for the 3% hand count. He
was aware of several "problem" precincts, that we had identified, but
instead selected two precincts in
"We believe that Tom Wolfe should have selected precincts that were not subjected to such handling. We also believe that Tom Wolfe should have selected precincts that showed anomalies. We identified one precinct that had 37 ballots without a recorded vote for president [6.2%]. The ones he selected had about 1% "no votes."
"They were very secretive and stonewalled when we asked to look at anything beyond the ballots. Even though we asked, we were not permitted to see [for each of the 3 precincts being recounted]: the voter signature books, provisional ballot tallies, provisional ballots, the actual machines and ballot booklets used at the precincts. And they did not let us see the testing of the tabulation machine."
"Other
problems with the voting process in
—
******************************************************************************************************8
10 precincts written on paper were put in a can and John ... pulled the paper with the precinct for the three percent hand-count."
[How the 'random sample' of 10 precincts written on paper were selected is not specified]
"During the hand-count, Ms. Frymayer [Dep. Director] asked Mr. Rapp [VP of Triad Systems] about a '5' that she had and he stated that 'he would show her what to do with it.'"
"I realized that the hand-count did not really tally ... I objected and stated that ... the hand count was still wrong. Ms. Frymyer objected and in so many words stated that ... a hand-count was not necessary."
"Please note that as the three percent ballots were starting to be tallied, Mr. Rapp handed me his card, as well as Ms. Spence [Southeast Ohio Regional Representative for the Ohio Secretary of State]. At this point, I realized what I was up against and why no one was up-front about who they were."
"When I learned he was in the room, as the recount was being started, I became extremely nervous and I did not feel like I could ask Mr. Rapp to leave the room."
"It felt like all that was happening was way over my head, and at the time that my role as a witness was not to interfere with the recount, no matter how it was done."
"At about
— Green Party Observer
"... the three percent of ballots to be recounted were already selected in advance [i.e., not random]"
"[We were] forced to stand up during the entire recount process, which seemed to be a needless inconvenience that could easily have been resolved."
"... we were denied access to the poll registry ... "
"I asked our local contact person if Nader's name had been covered on the actual punch card units at the polls and she replied that they had not been and that this had been controversial."
"I specifically asked [the county's attorney] if it was possible for us to get a number on [the Nader votes, and was told] ... the only way we could get this number would be to request and pay for a complete hand recount because the company that provides the tabulating equipment and computer software had come in before the election and reprogrammed everything to simply ignore the Nader votes."
"I asked who the vendor was, and he replied Triad Systems ... [and] that, as a matter of fact, they [Triad Systems] had been at the Mercer County Board of Elections the day prior to the recount. He further stated that he was told that there was some problem with the tabulator, and that the technician had replaced a switch."
"... the
technician who had done the work was still on the premises ... It turned out he
had actually disassembled the tabulator at
"Unlike
other counties at which the
"I would not accept this on its face since they were not honest about the equipment being serviced the day of the recount. Surely they all knew this had occurred."
— Green Party Observer
Miami
County (Optical Scan, ES&S) ***
(no random sample, preselected sample, hand
count vs machine did not match but did not follow
rules & do a full hand recount)
The morning began in an extremely structured and intimidating format, with sworn oaths and other formalities."
"Someone ... from the Miami County Prosecutor's office instructed the observers that they were not allowed to make challenges and that they were present only to watch, not verify. We were also informed that it was not necessary to be able to see the votes on the ballots, only to view the process."
A test deck was not
supplied by the Board of Elections, but rather was created by witnesses. In fact, before the witnesses insisted on a
test deck, the B.O.E. was not planning to run any test deck at all. Note of
irregularity: ballots seemed to already be sorted by candidate — how would this
occur?
"Precincts chosen for the three
percent hand count (pre-selected, not randomly)"
"There was a discrepancy between
the hand count tally of the sample three percent ballots and the computer
print-out tally of the optical scan of the ballots."
"... The discrepancy should have
been grounds for a complete hand recount of the entire county, based upon Provisions
for Recount,
"However, a representative from
the Secretary of State's Regional Office by the name of Jake Fashner interpreted the code [otherwise]."
"The Board of Electors agreed
with Mr. Fashner to deny our request for a full hand
recount and moved to accept and certify the machine recount as the official
results of the
"... Again the Board chair asked
what we wanted and I said that because there was a discrepancy a full
recount was in order. He went into the staff office, perhaps to check the
website. Jake Fashner directed comments toward us to
the effect of "Look, there will be no hand recount."
"Mr. Fashner
and the Chairman of the Board suggested if we have further concerns we might
take them up with ES&S."
"... a
significant number of spoiled ballots (about 500) that could not be read by the
optical scan machine had to be remade by B.O.E. staff with the intent of the
voter being replicated to the best of the staff member's ability. It should be
noted that this is a subjective process and that in the small sample we
reviewed, there were questionable choices made previously during the initial
counting by B.O.E. staff members in their attempt to transfer the voter's
intent to a new ballot."
Director Steve Quillen agreed to email provisional ballot information to J. and A., which has not yet been supplied
— Green
Party Observer
(Recount team apparently did not check voter logs against official totals or look at provisionals, undervotes, overvotes.)
"Precinct 11 was pre-chosen to be counted. The reason for choosing this precinct was due to its being only 4 votes above the 3% number..."
Test Deck: Mr. Rodefer has no recollection of any test deck being run before the recount began or prior to running the 3% hand-counted ballots.
There were several machine runs to
try to produce a match. "No two runs were alike and no run equaled the
hand count, however the machine did operate and produce a count each time
according to Mr. Rodefer..."
"They believed the problem was
in the machine at this point; Triad called, to send repair person immediately
(4 or more hours to arrive) to fix or bring new machine."
"BOE [Board of Elections] did
not proceed to full hand count, but voted to suspend the recount and 'continue
meeting' tomorrow (Wednesday 12/15) at
Suspended recount process. No more
information available.
— Green Party Observer
"It seemed that the process was
less an attempt to see if the machines could accurately read the punchcards and more of an exercise in ensuring artificially
that the hand recount and machine tabulation of the same three percent sample
were a match."
"Hanging chads,
which caused so many problems in
"Of course the hand recount will
match the computer tabulation of the same three percent sample
if the ballots are prepped to ensure that the machine cannot possibly misread
the chosen sample."
"If the change in the three
percent sample is considered statistically relevant and is extended to the full
100% of the vote, it would result in a pickup of greater than 250 votes for
Kerry."
"The staff was willing and able
to show us anything we requested and provide us with printouts of all critical
data. We even were able to receive the list of rejected provisional ballots
with each individual's personal information." in
"[The] "undervotes"
for which a candidate was designated and voter intent was clear heavily favored
Kerry."
"In some precincts that ran out of
envelopes (which bear a code distinguishing the correct precinct), envelopes
were borrowed from neighboring precincts."
"While the envelope may not have
been correct for a given voter, in certain cases the ballot itself was for the
correct precinct and as such the vote was counted."
Additional notes:
Despite clearly distinguishable voter intent, pursuant to
— Green
Party Observer
"The [Board of Elections] ladies
said they chose the precinct to be hand counted, because it was just over three
percent. It was not randomly chosen."
"When we asked to see the
provisional and absentee ballots, we were told that there was no way to tell
which they were, as they had been mixed back into their precincts. Once the
envelopes and stubs were removed, there was no way to identify them any
more."
"As for the provisional and
absentee ballots that were not counted, (30 out of 160 total), they were not on
hand. We were told they were locked away, and would be destroyed 60 days after
the election."
"That said,
it is my opinion... that the B of E in
— Libertarian
Observer Morgan
(apparently there was
no analysis of voter logs vs official votes or of undervotes and overvotes)
"They picked
"At this point Observer S. spoke
up and said that the precinct had to be selected at random. He explained that
he felt that random was something like putting 36 precincts' numbers in a bowl
and pulling one, if it was short, we would have to pull another one."
"This was not well taken. They
said that they felt how they selected was random and that the board had the
right to choose. They showed us in writing where they were getting this, and of
course it is all in the interpretation of 'random.'"
"While this discussion was going
on, one of the women left the room and came back and said that she had called
the Secretary of State [Kenneth Blackwell] and that they were right."
"At this point I called you
and discussed what was going on. Then I called the legal team and reported
it."
"The hand count for
The first hand count did not match the machine count, so the ballots
were further evaluated for overvotes and undervotes until a match was declared.
"... All in all, this was very
educational, and everyone seemed to want the same thing. I felt no ill
intent at any time."
—
(apparently no
inspection of voter logs vs official votes, or of undervotes, overvotes, and provisionals was done)
"the
Board had selected the 27th Precinct for the recount. I objected on the basis
that the board must randomly select the precinct(s) to be used for the recount
... I suggested a drawing by lot to determine the targeted precinct. Several
board members and both employees argues that their method respected the rules
... We moved on."
The Director said that they had run a test
deck manually, then a machine check on
"The full run of the precincts
proceeded on the machine. The recount was the same as the November 2nd
count."
We then moved to the
Poll Book/Reconciliation step and with the exception of one vote discrepancy in
two precincts and a two vote discrepancy in one precinct, every precinct
matched the
"We moved to the provisional
ballots numbering 75, of which only 2 were not counted. We examined the
provisional ballot envelopes and both were clearly received after the
— Green
Party Observer
Report by Green Party Observer
The
While I observed one
of the Republican members of the board clearly advocate for one of his party's
witnesses, who did not have the required documentation, there were no other
incidents observed or reported.
I acted as the
(no indication as to
whether sample was random; apparently no analysis of voter logs, provisionals, absentees, undervotes,
overvotes)
".. the
three percent [of ballots chosen for the recount] was selected at
random."
"[The witnesses] were ...
allowed to make suggestions about which precincts to pick,
and all the suggested names were put into a box and picked at random."
The three percent analysis
resulted in no discrepancies, so the rest of the county was completed by
machine.
The three witnesses
here reported that they felt that the process was very professional in this
county, and that the three percent was selected at random.
— Green
Party Observer Paulding
(no indication that voter logs, provisionals,
absentees, overvotes, undervotes
were checked)
The 3% Hand count
precincts, although not truly ascertained completely randomly, were chosen randomly
of those that fit population numbers to get to the 3%, and came from random
demographics representing both Dem wins and Rep wins.
We were given hours
until completion to complete a full inspection of all rejected provisional and
absentee ballots, allowing us to manually copy addresses of all those rejected
in wrong precinct and for no signature. It was obvious by the notes on these ballots, that
The under votes we
were asked to look for, were seen up close in the hand count as the voters
choice NOT to vote for anyone for president. There were votes for local issues
on these ballots, and the numbers were few and fell well within normal range of
voting patterns.
At the end of the
evening, the numbers on the tabulators screens,
matched the hand count, which matched the final report sent to the tabulating
computer. We took the numbers off the screens of the counting machines, as they
ran each precinct in
I have been trying to get access to the
voter logs since Nov. 7th as a volunteer for Ohio Vigilance, but am confident
after yesterday, talking to both Board of elections full and part time,
bi-partisan staff, they just want to finish processing them to complete count,
and do data entry into the voters files. Although we have yet to count the signature
books, we do have full access to them starting tomorrow. Portage County BOE
Director Lois Enlow, will begin a rotating schedule for our volunteers counting
the signature books starting tomorrow. I will add those numbers to my report as
they come in for the entire county
"
—
"When I first called them, they
had stated that their board would meet on December 15 to schedule their
recount, but when contacted on December 15 to determine the results of that
meeting, they stated that the recount had been conducted and completed that
day."
—
(there was no vote
audit done for this county)
Details
Precinct summary sheets were given to assorted people in the
room and 3 were told to pick a precinct. I chose
The handcount and machine counts did not perfectly match but
after examination of overvotes did match. The rest of the precincts were then counted
by machine.
I then proceeded to request the actual Polling Books and started
checking those. Observer A. joined me shortly after.
Absentee List not counted and Provisional List not counted.
I was one of the witnesses of the recount in
Earlier in the morning, I had observed that lists were being given to
certain people to choose the precinct they wanted counted. This did not appear
right to me, as it was my impression that the selection was to be by a
scientifically valid random sampling plan. The scheme they were using certainly
wasn't random. After talking this over with the other two GLib observers present, I recommended to them that we
ask for a precinct as well. I believe it was Karen Wagner who made the
selection, City of Clyde C. The other precincts that were chosen were Ballville
We returned about 1:10 and found the machine count underway. I stationed myself at the same machine that had counted our precinct in the morning, and kept a close eye on what was going on. The machine would stop periodically with a message that a ballot had been found with no vote or too many votes on it, and these were set aside to be judged. One scenario was that there were some ballots where a candidate's bubble was filled in, as well as the one directly below it on the last line, that for a write-in candidate. The ruling was made that since the line for write-in candidate had been left blank, a white-out sticker would be placed over that bubble so the machine could count it as a vote for the candidate. Due to the rotation of names between precincts county-wide, ballots that were over-voted in this manner would go to various candidates, and if the voter filled in two or more bubbles higher up on the ballot, it was definitely an over-vote. Probably some voters thought they had to vote separately for President and Vice-President, and were filling in the two ovals in the margin closest to their selections. But none of the VP candidates had separate bubbles so there were some spoiled ballots on that score. If a voter had clearly made an effort to erase a bubble and filled in a different one but the machine counted it as an over-vote, it received a white-out sticker on the erased bubble so as to be properly machine counted. A couple of ballots that were machine read as under-votes had all the ovals on the ballot checked instead of filled in, so when this was shown to the judges the decision was made to fill in the bubble where the checkmark was. This all seemed quite fair to me and I was impressed at how well the Democrats and Republicans got along, joking about how much it hurt to repair those types of ballots for the other side, all in good fun. It was surprising to find ballots with most or all of the Presidential candidates' ovals filled in, or with none filled in at all. Puzzling, but relatively rare, ballots like these that registered no vote for President.
I asked for a copy of the official, certified results. I was told I would
have to wait until they were done counting them. I said, no, I wanted the
results that they had already sent in to the Secretary of State previously, those results had to be on record somewhere in
the building. I was told OK, I could have a copy of that. I said, thank you.
Can I have them now, please? I was told everyone was busy,
I would have to wait until they were done counting. I said I really needed to
have them before the recount was finished, that it was important to me that I
have them now. I was polite but firm, and said there were plenty of people just
standing around, and I am sure someone could make a copy of the results that
had been sent to the
I was asked why the recount was requested by the minor party candidates, and said I didn't know for sure. I said there has been a lot of reports of problems with the election, but I thought that it was in the larger counties and those with touch-screen voting. A man said something to the effect that any county that had those ought to smash them, they were ripe for fraud. I asked if I could quote him on that and he said yes, and I got his name. It was Tom Yonkers.
There are a couple of things about the spoiled ballots that bothers me. One is that in cases where the voter filled in a bubble, then crossed it out and filled in a different one the ballot was deemed an over-vote and no vote for President was recorded. I said it seems that the intent of the voter can be determined, and was told, no, you can't count those. I didn't argue the matter, but felt more strongly that this determination was improper when I later found out that the precincts were furnished with pencils that had no erasers. Also, it is my understanding that Nader was not allowed to be counted on the ballot, even though his name appears on it. In some cases Nader's bubble was filled in as well as that of another candidate. If a Nader vote did not count, shouldn't the voter's other choice (Kerry or whoever) be counted?
There was also some talk of people being purged from the voting rolls if they hadn't voted recently. If they showed up to vote and their name wasn't on the list but they insisted they had voted before and were registered, they were given a provisional ballot. If their name had been purged, however, I don't think their vote was counted. Is that right? Also, some provisional ballots were not counted because of not having a signature on the outside envelope. Was there a rule change on that? There were 713 provisional ballots issued, and 617 were ruled valid to count at some previous time. We were told the provisional ballots judged valid were included among those we were recounting.
Interestingly, the two counting machines were ES&S, and even more interesting, there was a memo lying in plain sight on one of the tables with an ES&S letterhead. The memo gave a phone number to call if there were any problems on Novemeber 2, and requested that the election results be called in as soon as possible. Why would they need to know what the results were right away? The machines stored their information on a computer floppy disk drive built into the machine, but printed out the totals on an Okidata dot matrix printer on a table right by each machine. The hand counted precincts had the totals printed at the machine during the 3% test. During the full recount, the printers kept a running total of how many ballots they had counted and each time the counting was stopped when an uncountable ballot was encountered, but they did not print out any totals for the candidates as the recount progressed. I noted that to the person running the machine, and she said yeah, if it did that everyone would crowd around whenever it printed anything. Imagine that! So then I started to think, maybe there is a way this thing can be hacked after all. But I didn't find any proof of that. The machines did not appear to have telephone lines hooked to them. When the recount was finished, each machine printed a total for the candidates that it had counted in that run, and I made notes of those results. The director took the floppies out of the machines and left the room, saying we should get the final results in about a half an hour. I saw the screen on the computer she was using a little later, it had a heading on it that said, "Unity Election Reporting Manager." I did a rough calculation, adding the numbers most recently printed together with the ones from the 3 precincts we had counted in the morning, and the numbers were relatively close. After everything was said and done, Bush picked up 26 votes, Kerry picked up 33. The election officials appeared to have done their jobs well, and the added votes were fairly allocated.
Results: Badnarik Bush Kerry Nader Peroutka Write-in over under totals
11/17 53 16,195 12,653 107 48 ? 225 139 29,451
12/15 53 16,221 12,686 107 48 31 173 136 29,455
The average voter turnout was 74.75%. Ballville F reported the highest, 87.58% turnout. It went Bush over Kerry 255-152. The lowest turnout was City of Fremont 4-E, 54.48%, which went Kerry over Bush 109-98. It appears that many of the precincts with above average turnout went Bush and those with below average turnout went Kerry, especially in Fremont. This could indicate tampering or suppression, or just a lower percentage of turnout by Kerry supporters. However, people most often turn out to voice their opinion to change things, not to make them stay the same. I do wonder what is going on.
For the most part, the election
officials in
Sample was preselected by Board with board IT staff
present and 6 precincts chosen in a random manner.
We were not able to closely observe the recount process, only from afar. There has been a voter record lockdown.
A few of us are able to talk quietly near the front of the room and request signature poll books, precinct totals, and other reports that we want to inspect.
"[The Summit County Deputy Director] was as antagonistic as he could be, as though his job was to make the day as difficult as possible; he asked us to stand away from the tables so we took a position at the end of the table. He drew a line on the floor with tape even though the volunteers were behind it the whole time. He even threatened to throw me out because he said I was too close..."
Another observer commented that one of the workers was shielding her count from the observers in what could be perceived as deliberate. "Team #7, Bernie, kept the ballots hidden by holding her contrast (yellow) sheet over them so I couldn't see the holes. She held the yellow sheet in her left hand and as she moved one ballot from in front of her with her right and into the line of sight, she covered it with the yellow sheet...."
"I was also threatened with removal from the premises if my lips moved, the deputy director was very determined that there was not to be a single whisper in the room from anyone..."
"When there was a discrepancy, it was nearly impossible to hear what the line supervisor determined the ballot should be counted as since voices were kept to a minimum by the employees and we were not allowed to lean in to hear what the discrepancy was. This happened a number of times throughout the recount process."
I requested the
opportunity to review the rejected provisional and absentee ballots and was
denied that request. I also requested that we view the signature books
that corresponded to the ballots being hand counted, and again the request was
denied. I did have a conversation later in the day with the director,
Bryan Williams, and was told that the BOE was unable to accommodate our request
today, and they would be happy to allow us to view these materials over the next
few days.
The machine tally for
the rest of the ballots in
We did receive the provisional ballot report; though I have no access to how to
contact these folks. There is no problem receiving a voter database from the
county, however, they withold phone numbers, so I
will determine tomorrow how we want to proceed in contacting provisional
rejected votes. Many of the provisional votes were accepted in
****************************************************************************************
A careful review of the absentee vote
in one
precinct poll books of the precinct
in which they are registered. Over 100 precinct poll books in
_http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0412/S00154.htm_
http://blog.democrats.com/ohio-absentee
******************************************************
"Two precincts were chosen to generate the necessary three
percent."
"Recount was suspended due to repeated discrepancy of 1 vote between hand count and machine... The tabulator continued to record one more vote for Kerry than the hand count." With the Kerry candidate located in the 10 position, it would be possible that an overvote in the nine position would be determined to be an overvote during manual examination, but the tabulator would be programmed to recognize the 9 spot(Nader) to be vacant on the face card, and thus be recorded as a vote.
"The recount will be resumed
Monday 12/20." No further
information on whether there was a recount of this county or if voter logs, provisionals, absentees,
undervotes, and overvotes were checked.
— Green
Party Observer Tuscarawas
"[A Union County Board member] told us the day after the election that the hard drive on the machine, a Triad systems machine, failed and had to be replaced. They took the old hard drive with them when they replaced it but he sent a subpoena to them and got the old hard drive with a statement it had not been tampered with." No indication of how the vote count was affected.
The director had picked precincts Marysville 11 and 13, and Allen 1.
A check of the voter logs for 2 of the precincts matched the vote totals except there were 7 Presidential undervotes in one and 2 in the other.
— Green
Party Observer
Van Wert County (Punch Cards, Triad Tabulator ) random sample , Triad serviced tabulators remotely before recount.
Overall, the Board of Elections of Van Wert County was very cooperative."
The director explained that the precincts to be counted (Jackson and Van Wert 1D) were chosen at random at www.random.org"
"The hand
recount of
"When asked if Triad had serviced the machine, the deputy director and a board member stated that they had serviced the machine over the phone via modem on December 9th."
"... the director showed us the poll books for the two counted precincts ..."
"There were 295 total provisional ballots in the county, 23 rejected." "The director provided us a list of the 23 provisional voters whose ballots were rejected and the reason why each was rejected. The list does not give an address or phone number for the voters."
"When asked if it was possible the precincts on the envelope were wrong, the director stated that the BoE had problems with that in the past and now instructed the poll workers to call the BoE if they ran out of provisional ballots and not to take from another precinct."
[Editor's note: This rule apparently was ignored in some counties, such as Montgomery.]
— Green Party Observer Van Wert
"I arrived at the Vinton
County BoE at approximately
"
"I respectfully disagreed
and requested that the three percent be chosen again [that is, randomly].
However, the motion was denied and the recount continued."
"The board counts at a
comfortable speed and willingly holds up ballots so I can closely observe the punchcards"
"One overvote
is challenged by Loretta, the Democratic party witness. The ballot has been
punched once for Bush and once for Nader. As Nader is not on the
"Loretta points out that there
weren't enough signs explaining to people that Nader
was not on the ballot and someone may have voted for him anyway. The board
votes on the matter and unanimously concludes that the vote be counted for
Bush."
"The other ballot has been
punched once for Bush and once in the wrong spot, electing no one. This is also
placed in the votes for Bush pile."
"Just after
[Note: At 12;15
PM, the observer specifically asked for a random selection of votes to
be recounted, and that request was denied. Later, at
At this point
I am finally able to see the pollbooks.
I randomly choose four precincts to examine. Crystal and Nell show them to
me. I am able to see that all votes are accounted for and the signatures
are clearly explained to me. On two occasions, the numbers on the inside of the
book didn't match the number recorded. Nell and I were able to figure out
what had happened. Everything was legit.
"I feel it important to
recount that everyone present that day was a pleasure to work with. There were
no problems at all and the people at the BoE were
respectful of my needs."
—
The sample precincts to be used for
the recount were not chosen in the presence of the observers, but had been
chosen prior to our arrival"
The ballots were in place on the counting tables when observer teams were allowed to enter the counting room (this seems to be in violation of ORC 3515.04 which states 'At the time and place fixed for making a recount, the board of elections, in the presence of all witnesses who may be in atendance, shall open the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted, and shall recount them.'
"... As stated in the original
report, the observers from the Green and Democratic party questioned how those
particular precincts were chosen 'at random' for the recount and one Board
member said the numbers for those precincts were chosen 'out of a hat'.
Subsequently, this was found out not to be how those precincts were
chosen..." "Why the board
member stated that these precincts were 'selected from a hat' when knowing
otherwise... does not make good sense to me" The Board members did not tell the truth.
"... Observers did not witness [the] test
of the machine's accuracy."
"Contrary to what we expected
(or wanted), observers did confirm via their inspection of ballots during the
hand count that there were indeed ballots with NO choice for president."
Again, we are still
awaiting a response from the BoE (who is waiting on a
ruling from the Asst. Prosecutor) regarding our request for access to the poll
books, rejected provisional and absentee ballots, and ballot accounting sheets.
The review of these documents is necessary to make sure all the records are in
order and legitimate votes haven't been rejected or that duplicate or
prohibited votes have been counted. This is one area where we felt that the
Republican Board members and the SoS representative,
Christian Lobb, who had previously concurred with our
request during a 'casual' conversation (until, it seems, the local Republican
observers had some words with him), were particularly obstructionist,
dismissive and condescending, as if what we were asking to do was both
unnecessary and ridiculous, even though it is spelled out in the SoS Directive.
At least it seems to
us to be clearly spelled out in the Directive. The SoS representative had told us that (between our
first conversation with him and our 'official request') he had called the SoS's office for clarification and was told that the
Directive was an 'outline', a 'guideline', and was 'optional'. It seemed to
some of us (Greens and Dems) that the SoS rep. and Board (the strong personalities seemed to be
the Republicans) inconsistently applied the SoS
Directive, stating (or inferring) it was binding when it furthered their end
and that it was 'optional' when it was something that we requested that they
didn't want to do.
I heard the Green Party witness, Witness J., ask Susan Johnson
about the provisional ballots. Susan indicated that there was no way to verify
the rejected provisional ballots because there was no longer a name or address
associated with each prov. ballot — they were simply
in a stack.
"... we
are still awaiting a response from the BoE (who is
waiting on a ruling from the Asst. Prosecutor) regarding our request for access
to the poll books, rejected provisional and absentee ballots, and ballot
accounting sheets. The review of these documents is necessary to make sure all
the records are in order and legitimate votes haven't been rejected or that
duplicate or prohibited votes have been counted."
"To the best of our knowledge,
(and that of the Asst. Director), the result of the recount was not
certified."
— Green
Party Observer
We specified that we wished to audit
only a few precincts at random."
"Our request to perform these
tasks was not accepted by the Board. Member Spaeth
moved that our request should be reviewed by the
"Mr. Lobb
said that the Secretary of State's 'Outline of Recount Procedures' was optional
and that local Boards of Election could follow them or not."
— Green
Party Observer B
"The ballots were brought out
from the ballot room and removed from a large wire cart to a table, spread out
to keep precincts separate."
"Dorothy Kemp was explaining
that they found 2 combinations of 2 precincts that would come closest to the
3%. We were unable to obtain any explanation as to how the decision would be
random."
As we had been
requested to view poll books first, Bill and myself
asked about seeing them. We were told they were in the election office and we
could adjourn there to view them if we wanted to. They cleared the room
(I stayed till last to be sure) and locked the door and had a deputy sit
outside the door.
The hand counts did not initially
match the machine counts but overvotes and undervotes were marked up with a marker and stickers to
“reflect the will of the voter” and then there was a match. The Green observer disagreed that one overvote should have been counted for Bush since 2
candidates ovals were darkened. A
full machine recount was then carried out.
After the counting was
completed, they were told to save the results to disk. I asked for a
printout of the totals from the counting machines. Mr. Walker asked me why
I would want that when it would be the same as the printout from the BOE.
I said that I wanted it anyway. At that point he noticed #6 ballots
on top of machine #1 that had not been counted. He told me he couldn't give me
a printout until he found out what to do with these 6 ballots. He said that he
was going to ask Becky whether she wanted to add them in on her computer or
have them do it at the counting station. (Good to know it can be done on her
computer).
He returned, saying
Becky told him to run them through the machines. He handed the worker at machine
#2 a disk and told her to put that in and count the 6 ballots to add to it.
I thought that it would just add 6 more and then save them to the disk so
I was not concerned. They took the disk back and I again requested my
printout. The poll worker hit "clear" on the machine and that was
that. No data to print. I got a printout from machine #1 only. Then
Mr. Walker came back from Becky Kirkbride's
office with a disk marked "Machine #1 and #2". He said that when they
entered the disk back in before it added all the votes from machine #2 again
plus the #6. So they had to clear the machine (which had already been done by
accident) and add the data (which at this point was the combination of both
machines) then add the 6 ballots. I got a printout of this, but it is not
raw data from the counting machines. (I feel like a failure on that one).
The printout I received gives candidate totals but not totals of overvotes, undervotes or ovals
marked for "write in."
— Green
Party Observer
(no indication that voter logs, provisionals, absentees, overvotes, undervotes were checked)
"The three percent analysis resulted in no discrepancies"
"... the
folks here did a very good job and were very pleasant"
— Green
Party Observer Williams
(no indication of whether sample was random; no indication that voter logs, provisionals, absentees, overvotes, undervotes were checked; no details of recount given)
The
After the count I
spoke by phone with both J and the other witness and both reported that
everything went quickly and efficiently and that they did not complete any
incident reports. The three percent analysis resulted in no discrepancies, so
the rest of the county was completed by machine.
(no indication of whether sample was random, no indication that voter logs, provisionals, absentees, overvotes, undervotes were checked)
The precinct was chosen
randomly."
"Eleven absentee ballots were
not counted because they arrived at the BOE after November 2, even though they
were postmarked before election day..."
"Some points to ponder:
In Wyandot County in 2003, the total number of precincts was reduced from
40 to 24, possibly causing some confusion about where to vote." "Provisional ballots were not counted
today but were on the table..."
"I think the BOE did an
excellent job assisting us..."
— Green
Party Observer Wyandot
(no indication that voter logs, provisionals, absentees, overvotes, undervotes were checked)
Ohio Counties
Reports pending
·
Adams
Ashtabula Athens Belmont
Carroll Clark Crawford
Darke
Erie Franklin Geauga
Harrison Highland Jackson
Lawrence
·
Logan
Madison Muskingum Perry
Pickaway Pike Preble
Richland Ross Scioto
Seneca Shelby Stark
Trumbull
In Perry County, we inspected the voter
logbooks, which showed 100 people voting in one precinct without any
signatures, leaving no way to verify who actually voted. A lawsuit asking the
courts to overturn the results of the
Under
In two of the three counties we observed, technicians from Diebold and Triad, manufacturers of voting machines and vote-counting software, were present during the entire recount. The Diebold technician in Hardin County was actively involved in giving instructions to the observers. Further, he arrived the day before the recount to prepare the machines and data disks that contain the election results.
At an Ohio hearing convened by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., an affidavit was filed on behalf of Sherole Eaton, an election worker in Hocking County, describing how an employee of Triad may have tampered with the vote tabulator when he dismantled it three days before the Dec. 13 recount. In her affidavit, she states the technician told her "how to post a 'cheat sheet' on the wall so the ... count would come out perfect and we wouldn't have to do a full hand recount of the county."
Conyers has asked the FBI to investigate. Attorneys for John Kerry filed two motions on Monday to preserve the evidence in this case and to take the deposition of the Triad technician.
********************************************
On Dec. 16 we attended a Franklin County Board of Elections public hearing in Columbus. Citizens expressed their anger and outrage at having to wait up to seven hours to vote. One woman referred to the long lines as a "new poll tax." The Election Protection Coalition reported that of the 464 complaints about long lines in Ohio, 400 came from Columbus and Cleveland, where a large proportion of the state's Democratic voters live.
Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who co-chaired the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio, has come under heavy criticism for his handling of the election and the recount. He refused to respond to questions by several members of Congress. Conyers charged in a subsequent letter that Blackwell's refusal to answer questions is "part of a pattern of decisions that have worked to obstruct and stonewall a search for the truth about voting irregularities." Blackwell is also seeking a protective order to keep him from being interviewed as part of a court challenge to the Ohio election. We will never have a clear picture of Ohio's election results because of the lack of a statewide manual recount, lack of a voter-verified paper trail for many of the state's voters who used electronic voting machines, questions of possible machine tampering, and untold numbers of discouraged voters deterred by long lines. We call on Sen. Mark Dayton to join Rep. Maxine Waters and other members of Congress to stop the approval of the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6 until there is a full investigation into what really happened in Ohio.
Mark Halvorson is a co-founder of Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections - Minnesota, a grass-roots group that advocates for election integrity. Kirk Lund is an attorney.
***************************************************************************
In my opinion, there should have been fair state-wide rules about how certain types of "spoiled" ballots would be counted in the recount.
The county I helped with had optical scan ballots. In cases where it was obvious that a voter bubbled in a choice by mistake, then made an attempt to erase it and filled in another choice, the ballot was counted as legitimate. However, when instead of making an attempt to erase, the filled in bubble was X'd out and another filled in, these ballots were rejected, going into the "overvote" pile. I objected to that practice since it appeared the voter's intent was clear, but I was overruled. (I later found out the voters were supplied with pencils without erasers attached)
In cases where a voter voted for both Nader and
another candidate, these also went into the spoiled, overvote
stack. But since Nader was not supposed to be on the
ballot at all, these ballots should have counted for whoever the voter picked
besides Nader. If these two types of ballots were
consistently counted statewide, it might have made a difference in the outcome,
Yes, I don't think the people who paid for the recount got their money's worth. The recount, like the election, was fixed, rigged, hacked and stolen six ways from Sunday.
"Bruce" <hallbr01@holmes.ipfw.edu>
**** · KNOX COUNTY -- (1) Mostly white precincts received more voting machines than precincts with a majority of African-American voters; and (2) certain precincts lacked enough voting machines.
· HAMILTON COUNTY -- (1) Mostly white precincts received more voting machines than predominantly African-American precincts; (2) there were some voting machine errors keeping voters from inserting ballots ""all the way into certain machines……""; (3) candidates Kerry-Edwards names were omitted from some absentee ballots; and (4) a Republican precinct judge was asking every voter for their address and ""being a jerk about it.""
· JEFFERSON COUNTY -- ""some challenged voters were not notified that their registration was challenged and their right to vote was in question. Their names were merely published in a nearly unreadable list in the local newspaper.""
·
·
· MAHONING COUNTY -- (1) voting machine errors included one precinct ""recorded a negative 25 million votes""; (2) twenty to thirty ""ES&S iVotronic machines needed to be recalibrated during the voting process because some votes for a candidate were being counted for that candidate''s opponent""; (3) about a dozen of these machines had to be reset because they ""essentially froze."" And, (4) ""there were numerous reported instances of vote hopping (in which a voter selecting Kerry for President saw the choice displayed on the machine ''hop'' to Bush for President).""
·
· MIAMI COUNTY - (1) In Concord Southwest precinct ""voter turnout was a highly suspect and improbable 98.55%. In Concord South precinct, there was a highly improbable 94.27% voter turnout."" (2) After all precincts had reported, ""18,615 votes came in"" and are ""statistically suspicious..""
· MONTGOMERY COUNTY - Voting machine errors showed two precincts with ""25% presidential undervotes. This means no presidential vote was recorded on ? of the ballots. The overall undervote rate for the county was 2%. The undercount amounted to 2.8 percent of the ballots in the 231 precincts that supported candidate Kerry, but only 1.6 percent of those cast in the 354 precincts that supported candidate Bush.""
· SANDUSKY COUNTY - (1) There was an overcount ""when a computer disk containing votes was accidentally inserted into the vote tabulating machines twice by an election worker."" (2) Also, it was ""discovered some ballots in nine precincts were counted twice.""
· STARK COUNTY - ""The Election Board rejected provisional ballots cast at the wrong precinct in the right polling place."" This had been allowed in other elections.
· TRUMBULL COUNTY - a voter forged a registered voter''s name and gave a different address. When the registered voter arrived, she was allowed to vote.
· WARREN COUNTY - ""there were irregularities in the county on election night when officials locked down the county administration building and blocked anyone from observing the vote count.""
· IN SEVERAL COUNTIES, besides Franklin and Mahoning, ""there were numerous reported instances of vote hopping.."" Kerry voters saw their votes go to Bush.
The attorneys are basing their arguments on Ohio''s Revised Code 3515.16, entitled ""Testimony in Supreme Court."" All testimony will be given in the form of depositions.
The contestors may have 20 days to take and file testimony and the contestees 20 more days, but ""the court may render such judgments and make such orders as the law and facts warrant.""
Michael I. Shamos from the Institute for Software Research International, at Carnegie Mellon University, believes ""it is possible to overturn the Elector''s vote to match the will of the people if the irregularities are enough to overcome the margin of victory.""
**************************************************